Mr. PBR has been in a tizzy for the past eight years because a Black man has been President. Just imagine his inevitable tizzy when a WOMAN is elected President in 2016! :a20:

Probably better than liberals with cement in their butts and can't get off of them to do some work. Obama is an inept amateur, period.

I doubt that. He doesn't seem like the type. However, you are the one that keeps bringing up Obama's half black color, using it as an excuse for him being inept. It must be tiring to have to use the race card so much. You do know that Obie is half white, don't you? Does that mean, he is only half wrong? Or maybe just half inept?

Yes, Mr. PBR does seem that type!

I think Pres. Obama is a very good President. Sure is a lot than Crapweasel Bush - who is all white. :a20: Heck of a lot better than Romney would have been, too.

Isn't it time to get your white sheet and hood ready for your Villages Tea Party meeting? :a20:

You caught me again in your bait trap. Congrats. Obama is a scumbag loser and Hillary is just as bad if not worst. Do you think maybe Hillary is bad because she is white? Oh, I forgot her excuse is being a female. You can go crawl back into your hole now. You mom will be coming home from work soon, so you better go make your bed before she sees that you haven't done anything today but play with the old people on the Internet.

I don't doubt the numbers. It appears that there is an assumption that families contain only one worker, which isn't the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

There are many families in the country that are living pay check to pay check. You keep on hearing that these people are the takers, and are a problem that has to be corrected. I am not sure, but I think Ted Cruz is in favor of a flat tax. A flat tax would increase federal income tax on these families. Trump's tax plans are from a dream world. Sanders wants to increase taxes probably on everybody. Given that Hillary is a Democrat, she is probably for tax reform, which probably increase taxes on everybody.

Romney started this 47% nonsense that will not go away. Someone has to be the reason the country debt is increasing every year. So, the crime the 47% are guilty of is not making enough money to live on. So, send them to rehab, and they will come out making enough money to live on. That is a win/win situation.

You have been told over and over that your heyday has come and gone. Progressives have now got the majority of the voting blocs. It definitely be you that better crawl back in your hole.

We gots the votes to run the Regressive Republican machine and their loser minions to the side of the road like yesterdayz roadkill.

HILLARY wins! The USA wins.

Have you no friends that have a "Poor Steve" or "Poor John"? Those are the names they start every sentence about them with, it is almost like that "Poor" is part of the name on the birth certificate. Most have been a screw up since day one and most of those sentences refer to occasions about DUIs and other abuse and legal problems. The parent of "Poor Steve" has excuses after excuse about it being someone else's fault, like "Poor Steve got hooked on drugs cause he dated that one girl" or "Poor Steve got in a car accident last night, he was coming home from the bar and some guy stopped too quick in front of him".

Well, the reason I asked is; those people usually send "Poor Steve" to rehab a couple times and a lot of times they realize he is unfix-able. This is after they have spent 20K or more on a couple stints at rehab centers (average cost is 10-20K).

That leads me to; who can afford to pay 10 -20K for each of these "Poor Steve"s we have in this country? And then they have a relapse and then spend another 10-20K?

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

Rehab for people not paying taxes is not the same as rehab for people addicted to drugs. People that aren't paying federal income taxes are making next to nothing. So, the cure is a better job. Rehab is a two year associate's degree, or training for a job in the trades. Education is rehab. A better job is more addicting than making peanuts. So, you are not likely to fall back into the 47% category.

People receiving social security are part of the 47%. Receiving SS checks is a disease that is not curable. So, we will not be sent to rehab.

Are kids yours or mine entitled to a free college education or to have the loans paid off. We bailed out the banks so the billionaires didn't need to, we need them to bail out the kids while they are young enough to get rich and feed the system with more taxes. It's a hand up not a hand out.

Why did tuition go up so much? We let it.
Years of Cuts Threaten to Put College Out of Reach for More Students | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

People making $50k per year with a wife and two children are paying no taxes. Is that next to nothing? That fits within the middle class scope.

People receiving social security are not ALL part of the 47%. Everyone that has worked a job and has retired is allowed SS.

I have no comment on your rehab idea, just correcting some of your comment. I agree that if a person has a good job they are less likely to be in the 47% category, but there are a lot of good jobs within that 47% category, and that is the problem. Those folks should be paying income taxes also. Everyone should pay income taxes, if anyone pays them. Or go to a "fair tax" system. I do not believe that everyone should be wealthy or even necessarily be middle class. I believe it is up to that person and his/her motivation and ability. That is what is great about America. Everyone is NOT equal, but given equal opportunity. Some homeless prefer to be homeless. They do not wish the burden of paying bills or having any responsibility. That is up to them, and not to us to make them "better." It would be nice to have programs that would allow them to get off the street if they wish and clean up, eat and assist them with employment if they wish. Otherwise, you can't force them to work or get off the streets.

The gov should only assist those that are handicapped in some manner, and that includes the aged that can't do for themselves. The lazy and unmotivated should not benefit from the earners.

You have been paying them for years. How would you change the system?

You cut them off, they revolt, you shoot them.

If more of them survive than you, they win and create a new government of liars and thieves.

If you win, the whole "poor and unemployment" problem is solved. Life goes on.

That's how it's always been done.

Where has it been done?

You're kidding...right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_rebellions

Pick one...

Here's the newest 10 in your link. This is what you wish for yourself and your family? These countries are more the size of states, so do the math.

2015 PKK rebellion
Civilian impact[edit]
According to Turkish Human Rights Foundation, there have been 52 intermittent curfews in seven predominantly Kurdish towns where 1.3 million people live, sometimes lasting as long as 14 days. The organization puts the civilian death toll since the summer of 2015 at 124.[230] The situation in the South-East has little coverage in the Turkish media. The authorities have enforced a blockade over the region and have shut down both cell phone coverage and the internet. Hundreds of houses, dozens of schools and official buildings have been damaged by artillery and gun fire from militants,[231] and civilians have been allegedly fired at. Turkish Forces have used measures like tank fire to clear out bomb-trapped barricades which lead to damage of residential buildings.[232] It is estimated that more than 200,000 people have been displaced. According to the HRW, civilian death toll is around 100. Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association accuses Turkish Armed Forces and Gendarmerie of targeting civilians under the pretext of fighting terrorism.[233] Many residents in the southeastern cities have been trapped without food or electricity as clashes between Kurdish militants and Turkish security forces have intensified. In December 2015, town of Cizre, was under curfew for more than two weeks, with mounting civilian casualties. According to a teacher from the district of Silopi, the tanks fire all day and people have nowhere left to hide and they are dying in their own homes.[234]


Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010, also known as the Second Kyrgyz Revolution, began in April 2010 with the ousting of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev in the capital Bishkek. It was followed by increased ethnic tension involving Kyrgyz people and Uzbeks in the south of the country, which escalated in June 2010. The violence ultimately led to the consolidation of a new parliamentary system in Kyrgyzstan.
During the general mayhem, exiles from the Uzbek minority claim they were assaulted and driven to Uzbekistan, with some 400,000 Kyrgyzstani citizens becoming internally displaced.[1] Victims interviewed by media and aid workers testify to mass killing, gang rape and torture.[2] Then-head of the Interim government Roza Otunbayeva indicated that the death toll is tenfold higher than was previously reported, which brings the number of the dead to 2,000 people.

Tunisian Revolution
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
Libyan Civil War (2011)
Yemeni Revolution
2013-current Rojava Revolution
2014 Ukrainian Revolution
Abkhazian Revolution
2014 Burkinabé uprising
See also[edit]

All Muslim...and they want to brink in more and more of them...

It's not what "I" want, you asked what to do with the problem, I told you how it's always been taken care of...revolution.

It'll happen here, we're past the point of no return, more "minority" babies are being born than white, already kindergarten registrations are more "minority" than white. The next "migrant baby boom" will sweep through and change everything. We won't make it as a nation another 30 years. Nothing any of us will recognize anyway. We'll be 3rd world by then, they'll have won the "equality" war. Watch the movie "Idiocracy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk to see our future as we dumb down farther and farther. They're breeding us into oblivion.

You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.

However, you asked how I would change the system. Well, I am not the politician and I am not a half-white president that gets away with creating law with an E.O. BUT, one possible suggestion is to make every person that is not handicapped or over a certain age, WORK for their welfare. A simple process of putting women to work in filing rooms, coping forms using copy machines, running errands, babysitting for gov workers at a child care center (supervised of course) or janitorial work. DO not pay them any more than their welfare check and they will be rushing out to seek employment. Men can do laborer work for the state, collect trash and garbage off the highways and other physical labor. ALL recipients of welfare should undergo drug testing before receiving their check. That would eliminate a lot, right there.

Food stamps should only be used for items marked eligible for purchase using food stamps. Not brand named items, not high quality foods. Basics only. That information should be included on the barcode and the register could filter those items out.

Making it more difficult to obtain welfare when that person is perfectly capable to work is the right way to do it. Since Obama took office there is a record number of food stamp recipients right NOW.

We should take care of the handicapped and the old, if they are unable to support themselves.

Now, the liberals will pipe in and say, that's impossible. That's just as impossible as building a wall at the border. That's toooo harddddd!

BS!

Show me where I said that you were in a restrictive category?

[QUOTE=Guest;1212137]You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.

However, you asked how I would change the system.

ALL recipients of welfare should undergo drug testing before receiving their check.

Food stamps should only be used for items marked eligible for purchase using food stamps. Not brand named items, not high quality foods. Basics only. That information should be included on the barcode and the register could filter those items out.

Making it more difficult to obtain welfare when that person is perfectly capable to work is the right way to do it.QUOTE]

You have some great ideas!

The idea of mandatory drug testing for welfare recepients MUST include ALL recepients of Social Security checks, veteran benefits, and Medicare benefits!

The idea of food stamps being only for low quality basic foods is too liberal. Why not make it so the food stamps would only be good for meat, fish, and dairy products past their selling date and fruits and veggies that are bruised, wilted or spoiled? The canned foods eligible for food stamps would be those dented, bulging tops, and missing labels.

Thanks for your great ideas. I am sure Cruz or Trump would be glad to sign Exective Orders to bring them to fruition on their first day in office.

[QUOTE=Guest;1212155]Why would you have folks that receive money DUE to them, be required for drug testing? Do you wish to punish them for some reason? Perhaps because they earned their benefits? People on welfare should be drug tested to see if they are attempting to better themselves and not just attempting to live off of others. It's not punishment, it's qualifying. There is a big difference, but apparently you liberals see it to be the same. You believe that the gov should support you, where as most of us believe that the gov should ONLY protect us when we can't protect ourselves.

After starting this response, I realized that you are just being an @ssh*le and not really attempting to have a discussion. You are just our pet troll, that gets his jollies poking those that are better than himself. You can go play now, you got your attention. Go turn on your cable cartoon network.

MAKING someone work is slavery. That's why you don't have to work. The blacks wouldn't stand for it...get it? Stand for it, they're lazy and sit on their ass all day... Anyway, nope, you can't MAKE someone work the fields.

I've seen the welfare queen, fancy clothes, jewelry, well coifed, manicured, buying t-bone steaks, Coke, and Ben and Jerry's ice cream. I was behind her and saw her pull out the foodstamps. (Now it's a credit card for less "stigma") Then saw her getting into a Mercedes SUV. Where is the 1-800 fraud number and what would happen to her anyway?

They give away welfare to keep the masses quiet and reasonably content. Bread and circus. Food and entertainment. You'd be surprised how effective it is... Obesity, overeating, and TV go hand and hand.

You don't work in the garden, you don't eat...simple as that.

Hillary said "I did NOT transmit or receive any emails that were MARKED classified."

Obama said" I guarantee that the justice department will not PROTECT Clinton."

Hillary transmitted and received classified information, but it wasn't marked. Still a felony, but technically she isn't lying when she says it "wasn't MARKED classified."

Obama's Justice Dept won't protect Hillary, but it won't prosecute her either. Technically they are not protecting her if they are not pursuing a conviction. If no one is charging her, then there is nothing to protect her from.

Double speak from the best liars America has to offer.

And when the repubs are in charge, they do the same crap.

Both parties are corrupt, stop voting for either.

You know, I believe you are right. After this, I am never going to vote again. That will fix them. They'll definitely remember me when I don't vote for them.

Naw, just kidding.

Vote, but vote for someone you might actually WANT to win. I know it's a novel idea to not vote for the lesser of two evils. But you CAN do it. Pick the Libertarian who wants everyone to live and let live.

We have 2 votes now. Anyone else ready to stop the madness in DC? Anyone else tired of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? HALF the cost of the things you buy is tax. Tax gets added to tax along the supply chain, almost 10% each time it passes hands. Taxes add up quickly. Taxes is the government stealing from you and giving it to their contributors.

Yeah but nobody...NOBODY...N-O-B-O-D-Y does it as frequently and continuously as Clinton.
She lives the lies and can switch hats and faces faster than any other human known to mankind.

After starting this response, I realized that you are just being an @ssh*le and not really attempting to have a discussion. You are just our pet troll, that gets his jollies poking those that are better than himself. You can go play now, you got your attention. Go turn on your cable cartoon network.[/QUOTE]

I really got a chortle out of this reply! He fell face first :loco:into a trap set for the Wackadoodle Gang of Three and spent time trying to vindicate himself!

Mr. Wackadoodle, :loco:get a life away from the political forum. Go play some golf, take a line dancing lesson, or just drink yourself into oblivion but stay away from anything that requires you to have brain power. That goes for the entire Gang of Three!!:loco: :a20: :a20:

I really got a chortle out of this reply! He fell face first :loco:into a trap set for the Wackadoodle Gang of Three and spent time trying to vindicate himself!

Mr. Wackadoodle, :loco:get a life away from the political forum. Go play some golf, take a line dancing lesson, or just drink yourself into oblivion but stay away from anything that requires you to have brain power. That goes for the entire Gang of Three!!:loco: :a20: :a20:[/QUOTE]

Still trying to figure out who the "gang of three" is that you refer to. I do realize that there are only one or two liberals on here, one being a troll. Are you suggesting that there are only three conservative posters on here? There would not be much reason to have a political forum if only three made comments. Although, if they wish to have a political conversation, it doesn't help much if there is a liberal troll interrupting and diverting the subject.
If you are the troll that sets traps, it's a shame that you get your jollies from ill-mannered interrupting of conversations. But, I have noticed that liberals have a tendency to have little regard for disciplining their children and often fail to instill manners, leaving their children to run amok making a nuisance of themselves.

How can you interrupt? I skip the posts that are too long to read especially if there is no support, no links or I find it offensive. Doesn't everyone?

When you interrupt a vocal conversation the others talking have to stop or you talk over you. That's hardly the case with posts. Who reads all their email?

Obama "guarantees" justice department will not protect Clinton!?

This is the subject of this thread.
Your post diverted the conversation, didn't it. I don't get it. Why didn't you start a new thread?

Still trying to figure out who the "gang of three" is that you refer to. Are you suggesting that there are only three conservative posters on here? There would not be much reason to have a political forum if only three made comments. Although, if they wish to have a political conversation.
If you are the troll that sets traps, it's a shame that you get your jollies from ill-mannered interrupting of conversations. [/QUOTE]

Political conversations? Puleeze, give me a break! It is just name calling of the President by the Gang of Three :loco:and answering themselves with their one liners.

Always remember:

- Who has her and the Justice Dept. on puppet strings and can make her dangle awhile and then feed some more dirt to make her squirm;

- Who can pardon her next January (to keep her quiet about his dirty laundry) after he serves her up to an indictment so Biden-Warren can be parachuted in instead of Bernie. Bernie never joined their party (oops) their club, until he declared his run for the office now, and he is being reminded of this every day with the stacked super-delegate count against him. They will not allow him--an outsider--to take over their club. The RNC is doing the same thing, using Cruz as a doorstop to keep the door open to a brokered convention and putting Kasich in.

That would be something. Is it exactly the same backers paying both parties the same amount?

Is that information kept confidential?

Quite the imagination. And it sounds plausible. Let me suggest a bit more, based on my imagination. Bernie has just picked up the endorsement of Occupy Wall St, miscreants. Bernie has a large voter base, but is already slated to lose the nomination. Hillary has bought and paid for her super delegates, so she is a winner. BUT, think of this new perspective. Hillary faces off against ________ (fill in the blank) and finds out that Bernies folks are really ****ed off. She loses a large voter base because Bernie is no longer in the picture. On top of that, she doesn't have the majority of the Independents. Hillary loses.

Possible--but asking Sanders base, a collection of young people and intellectuals to make an angry vote for a republican is not likely. If they didn't read, comprehend and know what was in the country's best interest they wouldn't be his his base.

I don't think that I said that Bernies people would vote for a Republican. But, I do suggest that they won't turn out to vote. The Dems are already suffering at least a 20% decrease in voter turnout in the primaries, with the Republicans gaining at least 50% gain in voter turn out in most of the state primaries.

good point

I'm not sure, but here is a link showing the two parties' income of over $300 million each for 2016, and this is tax exempt income I'm pretty sure-- an IRS 527 organization I think I read elsewhere.

The watchdog group at this link notes this is not the donations the CANDIDATES get from donors. This is the parties' donation income.

See:

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Thank-you for the link.

Maybe I didn't word the question in the way I meant it.

There is speculation that Wall Street Lobbyists have so much money that they can afford to support all candidates for both parties.

I looked at the watchdog list and could not pick out the donors that would support this accusation.

Open secrets is a contradiction of terms. If the numbers are known, then what is the secret? The funds the parties receive is small in comparison to the funds sitting in the 501(4)c charitable organization. These charitable organizations are political action groups. Both parties have them. The IRS law states that they can not perform any political activity. The IRS isn't enforcing the law as written. They are using 50% as the law, which is a joke.

I really like Biden/Warren against Kasich/Rubio. I don't give a damn, what the party higher ups have to do to get there. Just like in golf, who cares how the ball got there as long as the out come is good.

There was talk about Bernie's crowd not voting, if he isn't the nominee.
The same holds true for the Republicans, if Trump isn't the nominee. At least Bernie isn't whining like a baby every day about the process like Trump does all the bleepin time. The Republican will get hit either way, if Trump is the nominee. His people will get out and vote, but the party faithful might not.